Interesting. That could be the way to beat the iPhone. Instead of attacking head on, go a level down and spread sideways. Apple doesn't like their software to run on devices they don't make. But they can't make every cool device. So even if Apple managed to crush Android on phones, they couldn't crush Android. And as long as Android lived, it would always be poised to creep back onto phones. Or whatever replaces them.
Apple has caught on that phones are the next gaming/entertainment platform. People want to play games on their iPhone, and they will pay for them. Developers want to make games for the iPhone, because they can make games that haven't been possible in the past, and they can make money selling them. John Carmack ported Duke Nukem to the iPhone for fun. The hardware is great for games. The operating system and development stack are also great for games. People who like games and like making games are all excited about the iPhone.
In contrast, the hardware for Android is not good for games. The Android operating system and development stack seem ill-suited for games. People are not excited about playing or making Android games. People who are excited about Android are excited about making it run on washing machines.
I have to think that marketing is a key component. The iPhone has a very particular ecosystem associated with it. The ads are the best example of this. While Android is a great OS (I absolutely love my G1 with Android 1.5), It will be difficult to become as pervasive as the iPhone is without marketing it in some capacity. I know Google has only very recently done tv ads and has traditionally used word of mouth to spread its products, but I think that getting the word out about Android beyond word of mouth is important. As more devices in different form factors come out with Android, I think it would be in Googles and the OHA best interest to market what Android is all about better. If they are unable to do that, the iPhone and other mobile platforms will always be ahead.
I think you'll be surprised at what openness can do when it is competing on a level playing field (or close to it). In the second (16 bit) personal computer war, the PC compatible won not because it was better, or cheaper, but because it was more open than Apple, Atari, and Commodore machines. And, you can't get any more open than Open Source. The fact that the OS here is free for manufacturers, and very nearly as good in every way as the iPhone OS, means that manufacturers will do the marketing for Google. They have to market their phones already...Samsung tried to convince us that the Instinct was as awesome as an iPhone, and spent millions doing it. Nobody was fooled because the Instinct is a Windows mobile device, and it actually sucks really hard. But it won't be long before there are a half dozen really good Android phones, and at least some of those manufacturers will push it as hard as the Instinct was pushed. And, in the case of Android phones, consumers won't be deeply disappointed by what they see.
Microsoft didn't have to advertise DOS or Windows very aggressively to beat Apple, Commodore and Atari back in 1985 and 1986 (when the market leader for the next twenty years was being decided and it was all still up in the air) in the market. Their army of OEMs did it for them.
I agree that we are entering into a highly competitive landscape for mobile, device and gadget operating systems. In fact, there are more choices than ever and that is a good thing. With a long history (~13 years) Microsoft is going to continue to push forward with new versions of windows mobile, windows phone, windows ce, windows embedded, etc. They have a huge footprint in this space and from what I can tell are really taking the mobile OS space very seriously. They are aggressively marketing to OEM's an attractive licensing plan and so this will be very interesting to see how Google Android does in this new space for them. In the end, it is all good for the consumers as we get some really cool toys and gadgets.
But all of those early microcomputers were competing for the extreme market, the nerd market, the early adopters and 16-year-old kids (with rich parents or verrrry successful after-school jobs).
Android can't beat the iPhone that way.
Also, used a G1 much? Android sucks, it's hard to use even for a person who has a clue (aka me), and its touch UI is bizarre.
There's no way a soccer mom will buy one and then buy one for her spoiled tween, unlike with the iPhone.
Yes, I have two of them (developer and standard). I love it. The hardware is kinda crap, but the OS is awesome.
But all of those early microcomputers were competing for the extreme market, the nerd market
1986 was not merely the nerd market. It was also the business market. I think we're sitting at the very same point in history with smart phones (the point at which they become really useful and usable for a whole new class of user).
Anyway, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I happen to love Android. It's reliable, fast, and does everything I want it to in a very intuitive manner. But, not only that, I think the fact that Google is enlisting dozens of manufacturers to work on their behalf to establish and grow the platform is an unbeatable strategy, unless Google (and their partners) completely screw it up. Apple can compete with one company making a cool phone. Apple simply can't compete with a dozen companies making cool phones...because history tells me that the dozen standards based companies will be able to make them cheaper, faster, and occasionally better. Apple just can't be everywhere (and in fact, part of their plan has been to remain exclusive to one carrier...people like cool products, but they also like to have choices).
The iPhone ecosystem will be hard for Android to reproduce. It goes beyond marketing communication. What about books for end users? The Genius Bar, comprehensive self-help materials online, your friends who all have the same phone? Desktop contact and calendar sync? The iTunes music and app stores?
All these ecosystem components require a critical mass of customers to make them practical. This will be hard to achieve when the customers are spread out over dozens of devices that are all a little bit different.
Even if Android never catches up with iPhone in popularity and ecosystem quality, it could still be worth developing for. Marvell's Sehat Sutardja, quoted in the article, points out, "There could be two billion smartphones. The proprietary operating systems could have one billion phones. That means half of the phones will be open source." And I would certainly rather have my washing machine running Android than Windows CE.
Right now I am using the new IO Developer Conference HTC. Gotta say it is pretty slick. Being a game developer, i can't wait to develop a game for it. Does it compare with the iphone, with apple's brand cachet, accelerometer, and nonstop media attention? No. Still, it's better than my now broken Blackberry, and has the feel of a PSP. Maybe Android has a chance.
I for one, was really hoping that Microsoft came with a handheld competition for the iPod Touch. From what i can see, the Zune HD isn't it. The extent that it lends itself to game development seems to be incredibly lackluster and half-hearted, and i think this is for two reaons: 1) Microsoft doesn't want to officially dilute the xbox brand with a Zune PSP clone because they don't have a mobile game strategy yet (it's Microsoft, it takes time!), and 2) they're still hoping that they can claim some market share in the MP3 market, which seems a horrible plan, but then so did the xbox...
